CHRONICLES, the name of two of the books of the Old Testament, as found in the common English Bible. In the Hebrew canon the C. form but one hook, which is entitled Events of the Times—and this appears to have been a designation commonly applied to special histories—in more definite shape, Events of the Times of King David, or the like. The Greek translators divided the long Hebrew book into two, and adopted the title things Omitted, that is, not recorded in the other historical books. Jerome suggested the title Ghronicon, whence comes the English name. The book of C. begins with Adam and ends abruptly in the middle of Cyrus's decree of restoration. The con tinuation of the narrative is found in the book of Ezra, which fills up the fragment of the decree of the Persian king. Of the authorship of C. nothing is known except what can be determined by internal evidence. The language implies that the book is one of the latest of the Old Testament. In the Hebrew '"Bible it is placed last. As to the time of the writing of C., it is argued that the chronicler wrote after the fall of the Persian monarchy. What seems to be certain and important for a right estimate of the book is that the author lived a considerable time after Ezra, and stood entirely under the influence of the religious institutions of the new theocracy. This point of view determined the nature'or his interest In time early history' of his peOple. The true importance of Hebrew history had always centered in the fact that this petty nation was the people of Jehovah, the spiritual God. The tragic interest which distinguishes the annals of Israel from the forgotten history of Moab or Damascus lies wholly in that long contest which finally- vindicated the reality of spiritual things and the supremacy of Jehovah's purpose, in the political ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary of these sacred truths. After the captivity, it was impossible to write the history of Israel's fortunes otherwise than in a spirit of religious pragmatism. But within the limits of the religious conception of the plan and purpose of the Hebrew history inore than oue point a view might be taken. The book of Kings looks upon history in the spirit of the prophets. But before the chronicler wrote, the last spark of prophecy had become extinct. The Jerusalem of Ezra was organized no longer as a nation, but as a municipality and a church. The center of religious life was no longer the prophetic word, but the ordinances of the Pentateuch and the liturgical service of the sanctuary. The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national, but ecclesiastical and municipal; and the historical continuity of the nation was vividly realized only within the walls of Jerusalem and the courts of the temple, in the solemn assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day. These influences naturally operated most strongly on those who were officially attached to the sanctuary. To a Levite, even more than to other Jews, the history of Israel meant above all things the history of Jerusalem, of the temple, and of the temple ordinances. The author of C. betrays in every page lkis essentially Levitical habit of mind. To such a mind, iu the fallen condition of the Jews as a political nation, there seemed to be room for a new history, which should confine itself to matters still interesting to the theocracy of Zion, keep ing Jerusalem and the temple in the foreground, and developing the divine signifi cance of the history in its causes and results, not so much with reference to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of the Pentateuch, so that the whole narra tive might be made to teach that the glory of Israel lies iu the observance of the divine law and ritual. For the sake of systematic completeness, the author of the
C. begius with Adam; but he had nothing to add to the Pentateuch, and the period from Moses to David contained little that served his purpose. He therefore contracted the early history into a series of genealogies, which were by no means the least inter esting part of his work at a time when every Israelite was concerned to prove the purity of his Hebrew descent. Froth the death of Saul the history becomes fuller, and runs parallel with the books of Samuel and Kings. The limitations of the author's interest in past times appear in the omission, among other particulars, of David's reign in Hebron, of the disorders in his family and the revolt of Absalom, of the circum stances of Solomon's accession, and of many details as to the wisdom and splendor of that sovereign, as well as of his fall into idolatry. In the latter history the ten tribes are quite neglected, and political affairs in Judah receive attention, not in pro portion to their intrinsic importance, but according as they serve to exemplify God's help to the obedient and his chastisement of the rebellious. That the author is always uuwilling to speak of the misfortunes of good riders, is not to be ascribed to a desire to suppress the truth, but shows that the book was throughout composed not in purely historical interest, but with a view to inculcate a practical lesson. The more important additions which the chronicler makes to the old narrative consist partly of full details of points connected with the history of the sanctuary and the great feasts, or the archaeology of the Levitical ministry, and partly of narratives of victories and defeats, of sins and punishments, of obedience and its reward, which could be made to point a plain religious lesson in favor of faithful observance of the law. The minor variations of C. from the books of Samuel and Kings are analogous to the larger additions and omissions, so that the whole work has a consistent and well-marked character, pre senting the history- in quite a different perspective from that of the old narrative. .1n immense amount of criticism has been expended upon C.; but after all it is safe to con chide, with Ewald and other careful critics, that there is no foundation for the charge that the chronicler invented history in the interest of his practical purpose of exhor• tation and encouragement. But it is not to be doubted that in shaping his narrative he allowed himself the same freedom taken by other ancient historians, and even by copy ists. [Portions of this article are, with modifications, from Encycloytdia Britannica, ninth edition.]